It is legal, sadfully, IMO. If it was in North Korea, it wouldn't be, per US export law.
On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/12/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Anyone know if they use the actual content from Wikipedia or not?
If they are and they aren't citing authors, aren't they in breach of
the
GFDL. And if that's the case, can we sue? Please?
Please, let's not. I see it as a good thing that people can access and
read Wikipedia articles in some way, whether or not the site is GFDL-compliant. Isn't that why we contribute our time here, to have people read our articles? The most basic freedom for information is the freedom to access and read it. Baidupedia is better than nothing for technically-unsavvy people in mainland China.
-- Matt
First of all, I'm not the one who wrote those sentences your email client attributed to me.
Secondly, I tend to agree with you that suing over a breach of the GFDL is not a good idea. And frankly, I doubt it would work.
Whether or not a grossly censored Baidupedia is better than nothing, I don't know. Depends, I suppose, how censored it is, but I get the impression that the censorship is much tighter than say the censorship of Google. From what I know of the situation I'd guess a censored version of Wikipedia is worse than nothing, because at least with nothing more people will go through the technical hoops to get around the firewall.
If anyone has any ideas as to what we can do to help get the real Wikipedia to the masses in China (no client-side setup required), I'd love to help. Maybe some sort of network of distributed servers providing https access through dynamically rotating IP addresses.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l